2009/11/24 Andrus Adamchik <andru..bjectstyle.org>
>
> My question is - why
>>> can't we have "silent" addTargetDirectly and removeTargetDirectly for
>>> to-many properties? This will allow as to manage event cycles.
>>>
>>
>
> I guess we can. This should replace "addReverse" parameter in the
> appropriate method. Talking from memory here, I may not remember all the
> stumbling blocks there (or even the full cycle of property setting). So if
> you can make it work, excellent.
>
> Also to make sure we are talking about the same thing... The question is
> who will be the owner of these methods - Object itself (as in DO), a to-many
> collection, or to-many property descriptor? I am thinking "property
> descriptor" (and possibly an underlying collection).
>
>
to-many collection and to-many property descriptor I guess.
>
> For POJOs and DO's it can work same as non-silent one, and for ROPs it
>> will
>> differ
>>
>
> "directly" means it won't trip a DB operation. So ideally it should work
> the same for all..
>
>
"Directly" means it puts value directly to underlying collection (if any).
I'll see if there is solution for all.
>
> So ... another attempt at abstract analysis (or an attempt at unwinding my
> memory...) IIRC the main difference between DO and PO is fault handling - we
> can store a Fault instance in a map, but not in a typed ivar. So PO's have
> no concepts of faults at all, and the lifecycle is different. DO approach is
> more lazy (it won't try to create even a placeholder collection until the
> property is accessed), and I prefer it to PO's. Wonder if when we reconcile
> that somehow, the rest will fall into place on its own??
>
> (E.g. for PO's, we generate extra boolean "fault" properties for each
> relationship, that are checked on every property access?)
>
Nice idea, need to think about it. But anyways, this is separate task
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Nov 24 2009 - 10:16:11 EST